Complaint summary

Miss Tracy has complained that she has been refused an ill-health retirement pension and that there were delays in processing her appeals through the Internal Dispute Resolution (IDR) process.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld because there were flaws in the process adopted by the Medical Advisers for deciding whether Miss Tracy’s incapacity was permanent or not.

Complaint summary

Miss Middleton complains that AC Management and Mark Harris have failed to respond to her enquiries about the status and security of her pension, leaving her unable to plan for her future and exercise her transfer rights.

Complaint summary

Mrs Readman has complained that the SoS, on behalf of Devon Primary Care Trust (the Trust) – her former employer, refused to authorise the payment of unreduced early retirement benefits to her.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reason

The complaint should be upheld against SoS because their decision refusing to authorise the payment of unreduced early retirement benefits to Mrs Readman was perverse.

Complaint summary

Mr Dodge’s complaint against the Commissioner and Capita relates to their failure to inform him of the tax penalties on his retirement benefits when taking subsequent re-employment.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against the Commissioner because it had a duty of care, as Mr Dodge’s employer, to have informed him of the tax implications of re -employment on his retirement benefits. Its failure to do so has led to Mr Dodge incurring tax charges on his retirement benefits.

Complaint summary

Ms Lott’s complaint against the Commissioner and Capita relates to their failure to inform her of the tax penalties on her retirement benefits when taking subsequent re-employment.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against the Commissioner because it had a duty of care, as Ms Lott’s employer, to have informed her of the tax implications of re -employment on her retirement benefits. Its failure to do so has led to Ms Lott incurring tax charges on her retirement benefits.

Complaint summary

Mr Cherry’s complaint against the Commissioner and Capita relates to their failure to inform him of the tax penalties on his retirement benefits when taking subsequent re-employment.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against the Commissioner because it had a duty of care, as Mr Cherry’s employer, to have informed him of the tax implications of re -employment on his retirement benefits. Its failure to do so has led to Mr Cherry incurring tax charges on his retirement benefits.

Complaint Summary

Mr Muller has complained that County Tyre wrongly stopped his monthly payments from the Scheme.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

My decision is that this complaint should be upheld. This is because the available evidence shows that Mr Muller was a pensioner Scheme member receiving a monthly pension up until November 2013. I am satisfied that County Tyre should have continued to pay the pension to Mr Muller after this date.

Complaint Summary

Mr Colin Lloyd, Ms Palmer and his two sons complain that due to delays on the part of Fidelity in effecting “in specie” transfers of their SIPP investments to Charles Stanley between November 2013 and July 2014 they have been unable to trade during the period in question and consequently have each suffered a financial loss.

Mr Colin Lloyd and Ms Palmer also contend that they have suffered further financial loss through payment of higher SIPP charges to Fidelity during the protracted transfer process.

Complaint summary

Mr Beveridge complains that following a TUPE transfer on 1 August 2010, Williams Lea have not made a 5% pension contribution into the Plan on his behalf. He understood that contributions from Williams Lea would be paid into the Plan, in addition to a 15% pension allowance which was paid to him as a salary enhancement.

Mr Beveridge also complains that in order to meet auto-enrolment requirements Williams Lea are taking the 1% mandatory employer contribution from the 15% pension allowance and adding it to the Plan.

Complaint summary

Mrs Mather has complained that TP provided her with incorrect benefit quotations, due to wrongly including a period of service for which she had previously received a refund of contributions. She is seeking either substantial compensation for the decisions she made in reliance upon the incorrect information, or the level of benefits originally quoted to her.